Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

POL3116 ACADEMICS > ACADEMIC SOURCES > Flashcards

ACADEMIC SOURCES Flashcards

(59 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Shaw, 1985 on deterrence

A

Permissible to threaten to do that which it would be immoral to do if the ends are just = peace. Permissibility of deterrence based on context.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Hayashi, 2015

A

Anti-nuclear deontologist. Nukes are intrinsically immoral as they violate the categorical imperative that people are to be treated w dignity. Our rejection of nukes must be independent of utility. Threat and use of nukes are morally equivalent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

McMahan, 1985 (on nuclear weapons)

A

Immorality of nukes does not need to be absolute - it is wrong (all else being equal) to risk doing that which it would be wrong to do. If the expected consequences for abandoning deterrence are greater than its benefits the deontological restraint may be overridden. threat and use of nuclear weapons not morally equivalent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Doyle, 2015 (on nukes)

A

Implementation of nuclear abolition may entail violating ethical rules by the need to cultivate a fear of nuclear holocaust - psychological trauma = moral harm? Does not provide an answer but raises an interesting question.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

General arguments for deterrence (4)

A
  1. The possibility of escalation to MAD is exactly what makes deterrence a credible policy / peace
  2. If the policy is successful nukes will never actually be used
  3. Degrees of wrongness: using nukes is not morally equivalent to deterrence
  4. Cannot trust other states to disarm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

General arguments against deterrence (6)

A
  1. Accidents happen
  2. Unique destructive power (proportionality)
  3. Discrimination impossible
  4. Maximisation of casualties - double-effect violated
  5. Violate categorical imperative - using civilian deaths as a means to an end
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Stoic view on honour

A

The pursuit of honour is not a virtue - you act virtuously because it is the right thing to do not for a reward.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Epicurean view on honour

A

Competition for honour endangers peace as it can lead to more violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Eudaimonia definition

A

Human flourishing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is virtue?

A

A character trait that is morally good and is conducive to making decision that lead to eudaemonia (human flourishing).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is virtue ethics?

A

1 of 3 major approaches to normative ethics that focuses on moral character. Virtue ethics poses that something is right if it is what a virtuous person would do.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is necessary for making virtuous decisions?

A

Phronesis = practical wisdom. Being able to decide to which virtue to follow and to what degree that is appropriate for the situation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Main ancient philosopher for virtue ethics

A

Aristotle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is honour

A

Incentive/reward for virtuous conduct? External vs internal honour.
Being respected by others vs. an internally felt duty (Olsthoorn)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Keegan, 1998 - Why is honour important in war?

A

Can instruct soldiers to act in ways that minimise suffering and enforces decency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How can we use virtues in war? (2)

A
  1. Training soldiers to act morally (Bushido code = responsibility to those dependent on you e.g. general population)
  2. Judging political decision makers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Gaskarth, 2011 on virtue ethics

A

Inherently subjective nature of ethical decision making requires a framework that reflects that.
Focus on political decision makers as individual moral agents - can assess what virtues they were following when they made decisions. Can analyse what virtues are conducive to good outcomes.
Focus on speech / justifications - can compare across cultures/countries.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Olsthoorn, 2005 on virtue ethics / honour

A

Military depends on honour (sacrifice your life to defend country), military ethic stresses the supremacy of society over individuals. Virtue requires a reward. Overcomes the inherent weakness of man and counteract the softening effect of society.
Acknowledges that honour can lead to personal aggrandisement that may create unnecessary violence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

McDowell, 1979 on virtue ethics

A

Unrealistic to attempt to codify ethics as Deonotology and Consequentialism have done. Phronesis is required to apply the rules that consequentialism and deon have laid out.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Main criticisms of virtue ethics (4)

A
  1. Not codifiable = cannot provide action guidance
  2. Is there a strong enough link between virtue and good/right? (Adams, 2006) You can perform a right action without being virtuous
  3. Cultural relativity (MacIntyre, 1985)
  4. Self-effacing - what justifies action should not be the agents motivation for doing it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Responses to main criticisms (4)

A
  1. Codification –> long list of vices actually able to guide how we should NOT act // we want soldiers who can decide when to avoid these vices
  2. Link between right & virtue –> (Brewer, 2009) modern conception of right/wrong built around adherence to moral rules // fails to recognise axiological concepts of good/bad/better/worse
  3. Cultural relativity –> (Solomon, 1988) not an issue unique to virtue ethics // many cultures have different ideas on welfare (consequentialism)
  4. Self-effacing –> again not unique to virtue ethics
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Why do we need virtue ethics for the ethics of war? (2)

A
  1. In war it is necessary that soldiers are prepared to die and take a life. Deontology and consequentialism cannot explain or motivate these actions –> honour and virtue fills this gap.
  2. Looking at decision makers
  3. Actions are rarely inherently good/bad
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Robinson, 2007 on honour

A

Honour = external & internal which reflect the virtues of magnanimity and integrity (respectively). These virtues encourage other virtues but also vice e.g. courage and loyalty. Excess of courage = rashness
Solution 1 = military should give greater weight to respect for human life and dignity
Solution 2 = widen honour group whose opinions soldiers care about, must reflect society

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Osiel, 2002 on honour

Study These Flashcards
A

Honour motivates compliance with ethical norms better than the threat of formal legal action

25
How does integrity function in the military?
Integrity = risk the loss of external honour to preserve internal honour. Resist peer pressure to misbehave in public and private.
26
Browning, 2001 on honour
German Police Battalion 101 massacred Jews in Poland for honour
27
Main military virtues (3)
Strength, loyalty, courage.
28
Jenkins, 2013 on cyberwar
Cyberweapons may actually improve proportionality and discrimination by its ability to redirect / stop the weapons after they've been deployed
29
Baylon, 2017 on cyberwar (4)
Main ethical issues = 1. Escalation --> Stuxnet unintended consequences = created a cyber arms race, increasing risk of cyberwar in the future // only delayed Iran's programme by 2 years 2. Collateral damage --> affected Russian nuclear plants = unintended --> potential to draw more countries into the conflict 3. Repurposed for criminal use --> steal credit card info 4. Planting cyberweapons during peacetime --> into critical infrastructure --> accidents can happen
30
Dipert, 2010 Cyberwar
When we can respond w military force (4) 1. Attack was substantial / unjustified 2. Attack ordered by highest level of government 3. Reasonable measures taken to minimise harm caused 4. Proportionality = harm commensurable to that caused by cyber attack / enough force to stop continuing cyberattacks
31
Finlay, 2018 cyberwar
Double-intent of violence (2) 1. Use of destructive harm 2. Reduce victims means of defence
32
Marsili, 2019 cyberwar (3)
Concept of cyberwar too vague --> states can unilaterally claim that response w force is commensurable Cybercrime merged w cyberterrorism = too vague concept Distinction --> civilians participating in cyberwarfare does not make them combatants
33
Tool-based definiton of cyberwar
Use of computer technology to cause harm comparable to that of conventional war
34
Aim-based definition of cyberwar
Dipert, 2010 - a nation attacking the information systems of another state
35
How doe JWT view cyberwar? (3)
Must be a form of war/ a element of war/ a weapon of war Form/element/weapon
36
What year was Stuxnet discovered
2010
37
What year was WannaCry deployed?
2017
38
Walzer (2006) on terrorism
Innocence and randomness --> violates discrimination to create pervasive fear. Act-oriented understanding, focus on the means and targets
39
Elk, 2017 on terrorism
Virtue ethics approach = agent-centred = broaden morally relevant features of terrorism Why do people become terrorists --> socio-economic conditions unable to achieve the good life / symptomatic of inability to live the good life
40
Bhatia, 2005 on terrorism
Naming terrorist significant in shaping how you deal w them --> delegitimises the group. Used to broaden government power, by them being able to unilaterally label groups as terrorist
41
Zehfuss, 2012 on terrorism
Principle of discrimination based on false premise that there is a difference between combatants/non-combatants No agreed reason for why civilians have immunity = innocent/cannot defend themselves/ dont pose a risk --> privatisation of war economy means that civilians are directly linked to causing harm in war through involvement in the technical and logistical chains of command. Separating civilians from politics w/ emphasis on innocence
42
Bellamy, 2006 on terrorism
W/o the principle of discrimination this could aid the justification for terrorism --> threaten the justification for war = mass murder
43
Fyre, 2000 3 features of humanitarian intervention
1. Use of military force 2. Interference in the internal affairs of another state (violate sovereignty) 3. Motivated by humanitarian objectives
44
Fixdal and Smith (1998) on humanitarian intervention
Secular reading of JWT makes it immoral to have ulterior motives
45
Kuperman 2013 on humanitarian intervention
Moral hazard dynamic and mission creep --> violate proportionality // non-humanitarian motivations (regime change) unjustifiable unless dealing w genocidal regime
46
Bellamy, 2004 on humanitarian intervention
primacy of intentions over outcomes/motives 1. Intentions = product of motivations 2. Does not require a state to have solely humanitarian motives for intervention to be justified 3. Good outcomes can be achieved w/o intending them (Vietnamese invade Cambodia) --> non-humanitarian motivations self-interest (against chinese encirclement) 4. Motives easy to conceal --> Iraq invasion shifting rationale - prevent WMDs then establishing democracy
47
Doctrine of double-effect (4)
It is permissible to do something morally bad as long as it is a foreseen but unintended side effect of doing something morally good 1. The act is morally good 2. Only the good effect is intended 3. The good effect is not achieved by way of the bad effect 4. The good outweighs the bad
48
Consequentialism definition
The doctrine that posits that an act is morally good or bad if it leads to the maximisation of good states of affairs. Individuals are morally required to do that which will create the best outcomes. Impartial doctrine. Instrumental view of individuals.
49
Deontology definition
Ethical doctrine that posits that morality lays in our adherence to certain ethical principles, rules, and duties.
50
Humanity formulation of the categorical imperative
Moral imperative to not treat individuals as mere means to an end, but as ends in and of themselves.
51
Rule-utilitarian definition
Creation of 'rules of thumb' that allow for it to be morally permissible to not take certain actions even if they would lead to a maximisation of utility.
52
McMahan, 2009 on collateral damage
Consequentialism fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants and cannot justify collateral damage. As long as the overall net welfare has been increased it does not matter what category of people have been killed
53
Bellamy, 2004 on how to analyse intentions (3)
1. justifications put forward 2. alternative explanations 3. strategies employed
54
Lucas, 1995 on consequentialism
1. Issue of time perspective --> disjunctive conclusions --> underestimating the foreseen harm
55
McMahan, 2010 on pacifism
rejects the claim that unjust combatants are innocent --> so few refused to fight in WWII The prohibition that it is wrong to risk killing an possible innocent in order to save another innocent is not as strong as we think --> driving car example
56
Narveson, 1965 on pacifism
We have a right to security - this entails doing what we must to protect this right. If you live in a political community where it is expected for you to defend other members of that political community through force, you either must do so or emigrate.
57
Grier, 2003 on pacifism
cowardice is the vice that makes non-violence impossible
58
Stephens, 2011 on pacifism
non violence greatly increased chance of success for campaigns seeking regime change and are more likely to lead to democratic forms of government.
59
Galtung, 1969 on pacifism
positive peace = the active promotion of peace and social justice, not merely the absence of direct violence

POL3116 ACADEMICS (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions